CreateDebate


Debate Info

18
19
YES NO
Debate Score:37
Arguments:32
Total Votes:43
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 YES (15)
 
 NO (17)

Debate Creator

smascolo(5) pic



Should the American Government place stricter laws on gun possession?

,This debate discusses the issue of gun control in America.

 

Are the laws currently strict enough, and you agree that it's the "people" not the "guns that cause violence?

Or do the laws need to be stricter- should we keep guns out of people's hands?

YES

Side Score: 18
VS.

NO

Side Score: 19
2 points

They should but the probably won't.

Side: YES
1 point

Obviously there should be refined versions of the 2nd Amendment.

Why shouldn't there be?

People are obviously not in a position to frankly state "We will not to anything stupid with the right to bear arms."

There are human errors, and with that said, humans should especially be treated with caution when using the "right to bear arms"; humans do dumb and amazing things with weaponry.

I can't say the same to our government, (the united stated of america)...they obviously are ran by a different set of guidelines and rules to their "right to bear arms, and be the fucking WORLD POLICE.."

We are questions and debating onto two different subjects.

So to answer your question, yes and no.

Side: YES
1 point

Obviously! You know why there are so few Islamic terrorists attacking America? Because you guys are doing the job for them. How to kill the most Americans? Sell them cheap hamburgers and make more guns available to them. If they don't eat themselves into an early grave, they'll just start shooting at one another.

Side: YES
warrior(1854) Disputed
1 point

Fact: based on studies conducted by the CDC and DOJ guns are 4 times more likely to be used in self defense, 89% of the Time firing the weapon isn't needed just showing your would be assailant the business end is enough to defuse the situation. Your move libtard

Side: NO
1 point

In the United States alone, guns are the most common out of all weaponry including knives, switchblades, cars etc as the weapon in murders. America, despite being a developed country, ranked 26th in the world in number of murders in which the murder weapon was a gun. Many say that it's the murderer, not the weapon who should be looked upon, and that a gun on its own cannot do any harm until it's in someone's hands. But see the reason why these weapons of mass destruction can even get into these people's hands are due to loose laws on gun possession. tighten the laws, and the numbers will surely go down. right now, in the US, background checks are rarely done in more than 40% of gun sales, since most people buy from relatives/friends. so yes, the laws should be tightened.

Side: YES
1 point

Yes there should be. There should be laws allowing for a psychological examination of the person who is applying for firearm possession because many of the heinous crimes committed by firearm owners are committed by mentally disturbed people.

Side: YES

Real strict laws are needed in order to stop this excessive gun violence.

Side: YES

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has a startling revelation for 2015. It is projected that deaths from guns will surpass deaths from car fatalities in 2015. An estimated 33,000 Americans will lose their lives from guns as opposed to an estimated 32,000 Americans who will die in car accidents.

The gun violence in America is an American Shame!

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-12-19/american-gun-deaths-to-exceed-traffic-fatalities-by-2015

Side: YES
2 points

It might be time for people on both sides of the issue to at least entertain the notion that maybe the legal status of guns does not actually have direct significant correlation with violent crime, and rather than fiddling with our laws, maybe look at making mental health treatment easier to acquire, and making prisons more affective at rehabilitation and deal with other issues that have a stronger correlation with the problem.

Side: NO
1 point

Why is createdebate always about America. What about us we have problems?

Side: NO
Lynaldea(1227) Disputed
1 point

This site and forum is based and created from Americans.

It's got nothing personal to do with foreign countries.

The site is to and for the people, of the world.

Stop bitching and/or being a troll.

This is America.

Side: YES
SovietSpy(709) Disputed
1 point

I am not trolling I am just stating an observation. But I am sorry that you were offended

Side: NO
TimelordROOK(94) Disputed
0 points

This is the internet. It knows no borders. Get over yourself.

Side: NO
1 point

I don't own a gun and I've never fired one, but I am a huge supporter of gun rights. Self-defense is a inherent right that all of us have and removing one's ability to defend themselves is something I find morally repugnant.

Besides it's incredibly difficult and expensive to regulate restricting gun laws in the US. It's practically impossible given the large number of gun owners and the tragedy of it all is that it would accomplish nothing. Law abiding citizens will give up their guns and the one's who intend to use guns for malicious intent won't.

Such a law will not deter criminals.

Side: NO

Government laws don't make us more civilized, if anything we become less civilized through the act of force and less voluntary actions.

Side: NO
1 point

For one thing, without the right to own guns, WHAT IS THE MILITARY SUPPOSED TO USE?! Will we even HAVE a military?

Now that I've covered that,, let me bring up something...

EVER HEARD OF THE BLACK MARKET?!

Side: NO
TimelordROOK(94) Disputed
1 point

You know, this is an idea I had beforehand aswell. The black market makes a convenient reason to not restrict gun laws. If the people are going to get them anyway, why ban them?

Sensible logic^

But, when you think a little farther ahead, members of the Black Market don't sell weapons to people they don't know anyway. Loose lips sink ships and the Black Market is a very LARGE ship.

When firearms are banned in America, those restrictions are only going to get tighter. With firearms legal, they can get in a little trouble and go to jail for a bit.

With firearms banned, they will get in quit a bit of trouble, and may never see freedom again.

Nobody reasonable likes to be incarcerated. That's the base line of it.

And the people who sell the guns, believe it or not, are reasonable businessmen who saw an area for profit outside the constricts of the law. They know that if they get caught, there will be severe repercussions for their work, however, they operate quietly and cover their tracks.

Obviously, guns will still get through. Without a complete totalitarian regime, nothing can be stamped out completely.

The point is, that you will not be able to find a gun at wal-mart just because your wife fucked another guy.

Without guns in the homes, the deranged people who shoot up schools because they were bullied at some point will not have easy access to their guns and they will probably slip out of their dangerous mental state before they can act on their aggression.

Obviously, this will not stop the killers who plan carefully in advance, gather their resources via previosuly existing black market connections and carry out attacks. But we've never been able to stop those people before they strike, so it is essentially a moot point.

The violence won't disappear of course, but it will be reduced.

The military would be exempted from that rule, i would imagine, but would have to check their firearms at an armoury before leaving the base. I have no idea if that is the current practice in america or not, as I don't live there.

but, that is how a third party views it.

Side: YES
sayyad99(773) Disputed
1 point

The right to own guns was created so it could apply during the times of war when every male civilian could have been drafted to serve in the war. So yes, the military is excluded from this group because the amendment was created to preserve the ability of the military. And you are right. The black market will always exist but let me ask you another question. Should we allow rapists to continue raping simply because they will do it anyways? If you are suggesting that we should not place stricter laws on gun possession simply because it will still take place through the black market, then you reason is flawed for a surety.

Side: YES
1 point

Id say no.. First of all, guns wouldnt have any use without people using it. They'd just stay on wherever you put them because they cant walk. Therefore, it is only up to the people if they would have a use for that object.

Second, I'd like to say that they shouldnt put any more strict rules about gun possession. More strict laws, therefore, more people would want to violate it.

Side: NO
TimelordROOK(94) Disputed
1 point

The gun is a symbol.

It is a symbol of a human desire to kill efficiently.

Owning a gun makes people feel safe. Why? Because there is no living thing in the world that you can not kill with a gun.

Someone robs a house, the residents come home mid robbery.

What's the rationale of someone who doesn't own a gun?

"I'll call the authorities and they will come and solve the problem."

Either the authorities or the sound of the sirens scare off the would be robber.

What's the rationale of someone who owns a gun?

"I'm going to go kill them and solve the problem."

Either the robber or the man who goes in dies.

The top one ensures the continued life of the homeowners.

When anyone can have a gun, it is a more dangerous world. The ability to kill someone at the pull of a trigger is not something any man should have.

Side: YES
warrior(1854) Disputed
2 points

The average response time to a code 3 call for service is 30 minuets burglary is a Code 2 (less important) criminals don't wait that long by the time the authority's arrive to "fix" the situation the burglar has already robbed you blind and depending on the situation you might be dead and you wife or daughter might have been raped.

Side: NO
Cambriel(711) Disputed
1 point

The gun is a symbol. It is a symbol of a human desire to kill efficiently.

Who says? And where did you get that fact? or opinion?

Owning a gun makes people feel safe. Why? Because there is no living thing in the world that you can not kill with a gun.

Oh yes, it makes people feel safe. But not all things in the world can be killed with a gun. Apparently, you'd be able to kill someone if you shoot them in a vital organ or artery, but if you dont, then they wouldnt die. Also they could be killed if you shot a living thing many times. Apparently, if you shoot a starfish, it could self generate and create a new tentacle(if thats what you call it).. as long as you dont shoot a vital organ of it.

Someone robs a house, the residents come home mid robbery.

What's the rationale of someone who doesn't own a gun?

"I'll call the authorities and they will come and solve the problem."

Either the authorities or the sound of the sirens scare off the would be robber.

Yeah theyd call the authorities.. that would be better. But, what if the burglar does something bad to you? You use it for self defense. You use the gun not for attacking, but just to defend yourself. Thats what I was saying. Besides, authorities would come and the burglars would escape, not be caught by the authority. Therefore, robbers could do more attacks on other people.

What's the rationale of someone who owns a gun?

"I'm going to go kill them and solve the problem."

No, what do you really think of all people huh? Killers? Come on. Some people would even get a license for the gun and just keep it at home, and not take it out of their house. Theyd just use it for defense.

Either the robber or the man who goes in dies.

The robber would most likely be not killed because they himself have their own set of guns. Policemen would likely be killed, because they are armed too. Then, the owner of the house will not do anything bad, as long as the burglar doesnt hurt them.

The top one ensures the continued life of the homeowners.

When anyone can have a gun, it is a more dangerous world. The ability to kill someone at the pull of a trigger is not something any man should have.

No it doesnt. What makes you so sure that policemen would do their job so well, with arresting these people? Besides, burglars will not go home without a fight, therefore, they would likely be engaging in a shootout. And it would lead to more deaths.

I did not say that anyone can have a gun. Of course, children should not be given guns, and only responsible people should be given. Besides, the debate is about the stricter laws that should be imposed on guns, not TOTAL GUN BAN.

Side: NO
1 point

HELL NO. People need guns for protection. Police don't protect people that isn their job a cops job is to make an area safer by removing dangerous individuals form the rest of the population. Only YOU can ASSURE YOUR safety. If a cop is present at the place and at the time that an incident is occurring he WILL help you but the problem is there's no guarantee there will always be a cop right there. Especially considering how criminals though really dumb are usually smart enough to make sure no one els is around before robbing, mugging, murdering, or rapeing someone.

Side: NO
1 point

Maybe a more important question is would you take up arms that have been taken by the government to defend your freedom and your rights in the case of our government turning totalitarian?

Violence certainly never solves anything but a gun in the hands of any human being does symbolize some sort of violence... war wouldn't solve anything it would only cause more devastation take our own Civil War for that matter!

Side: NO
1 point

Outlawing guns will not help. For one thing a law will not keep them out of criminals hands. Just look at Mexico. Some of the strictest gun laws in the world and the worst violence. If it did keep guns off the streets well then what? The FBI says baseball bats are one of the most common deadly weapons. You don't need a gun to kill someone.

Side: NO
0 points

no because of the second amendment and if they do there will most likely be a second civil war

Side: NO
TimelordROOK(94) Disputed
1 point

Would you take up arms because the government was trying to make america a safer place?

Side: YES
warrior(1854) Disputed
1 point

Irrelevant. Gun control dose not actually make people safer. Look at mexico they have gun control laws, Australia has seen a 30% spike in violent crime since enacting their gun laws. And when DC had their hand gun ban their murder rate SPIKED as the murder rate for the rest of the country where no such ban was in effect fell.

Side: NO